Boost: Hybrid Warfare

Hybrid Warfare needs a boost, and if any of you play it, you can understand that +25 cost to inf cripples your economy fast.

I suggest removing that cost altogether.

Hybrid warfare is essentially a land warfare strategy, and its air unit suck (horribly, like with teeth). In addition, the infantry is not an OP unit, because it can only defend, but why make it cost your entire economy to defend?

In addition, I would think removing the cost to inf would make more players attracted to Hybrid Warfare.

I would like to know who would support this idea?

Suggested:
- Make bombers 8 attack, 1 defense for 150 cost
- Give helicopters a 2 marine capacity, 1 attack 4 defense (with defense bonuses, default) for 170 cost.
- Make helicopters stealth
- Reduce Inf from +25 cost to +10 cost

I've never played hybrid warfare because it's EXPENSIVE. Not everyone have 'lots of spare SP laying around' sorry. We're doomed by VRIL. He controls Amok's mind.

It's been basically unplayable since it came out. But since it's only something higher ranks with all upgrades AND premium can enjoy, I don't really mind. It certainly shouldn't be more powerful than the regular strategies most people use.

Though you are correct, I wouldn't remove the cost altogether. That would make it have the same cost as GC infantry which that part of the strategy is supposed to emulate to a lower degree. Just remove the after-implementation cost nerf and bring it back down to just +10 instead of +25. Make something else easier to use. Reduce the cost-nerf of air transports by 50 (so 600+100 instead of 600+150).

That or make something else slightly easier. Just the air transports stick out at me when I look at the stats.

Nah. Keep it horrible for the next Multi skill tournament.

I would support the idea. It does seem like a pretty weak strategy becuase of that.

Kirjutas Desu, 30.07.2013 at 06:08

It's been basically unplayable since it came out. But since it's only something higher ranks with all upgrades AND premium can enjoy, I don't really mind. It certainly shouldn't be more powerful than the regular strategies most people use.

Though you are correct, I wouldn't remove the cost altogether. That would make it have the same cost as GC infantry which that part of the strategy is supposed to emulate to a lower degree. Just remove the after-implementation cost nerf and bring it back down to just +10 instead of +25. Make something else easier to use. Reduce the cost-nerf of air transports by 50 (so 600+100 instead of 600+150).

That or make something else slightly easier. Just the air transports stick out at me when I look at the stats.

I support Desu's proposal. Removing the +25 would be too much.

Additionally, I had been thinking of this for a while now since several are saying that "HW is simply GW and GC combined" which irritates me.

Here are additional boost/nerfs that I would like to see added to the strategy.
- Make bombers 8 attack, 1 defense for 150 cost
- Give helicopters a 2 marine capacity, 1 attack 4 defense (with defense bonuses, default) for 170 cost.

Kirjutas tophat, 31.07.2013 at 17:13

Kirjutas Desu, 30.07.2013 at 06:08

It's been basically unplayable since it came out. But since it's only something higher ranks with all upgrades AND premium can enjoy, I don't really mind. It certainly shouldn't be more powerful than the regular strategies most people use.

Though you are correct, I wouldn't remove the cost altogether. That would make it have the same cost as GC infantry which that part of the strategy is supposed to emulate to a lower degree. Just remove the after-implementation cost nerf and bring it back down to just +10 instead of +25. Make something else easier to use. Reduce the cost-nerf of air transports by 50 (so 600+100 instead of 600+150).

That or make something else slightly easier. Just the air transports stick out at me when I look at the stats.

I support Desu's proposal. Removing the +25 would be too much.

Additionally, I had been thinking of this for a while now since several are saying that "HW is simply GW and GC combined" which irritates me.

Here are additional boost/nerfs that I would like to see added to the strategy.
- Make bombers 8 attack, 1 defense for 150 cost
- Give helicopters a 2 marine capacity, 1 attack 4 defense (with defense bonuses, default) for 170 cost.

if you give it a +1 marine capacity to HW, i would like to see the same boost to desert storm.
it will irritate me that a different strategy has better capacity than the actual strategy for helicopters.

Kirjutas Tundy, 31.07.2013 at 17:18

if you give it a +1 marine capacity to HW, i would like to see the same boost to desert storm.
it will irritate me that a different strategy has better capacity than the actual strategy for helicopters.

yes i agree with you there.

but again, HW helicopters are terrible at everything else and are 40 cost more than ds helicopters. so it wouldn't be the end of the world if ds remains the same.

Kirjutas Tundy, 31.07.2013 at 17:18

Kirjutas tophat, 31.07.2013 at 17:13

Kirjutas Desu, 30.07.2013 at 06:08

It's been basically unplayable since it came out. But since it's only something higher ranks with all upgrades AND premium can enjoy, I don't really mind. It certainly shouldn't be more powerful than the regular strategies most people use.

Though you are correct, I wouldn't remove the cost altogether. That would make it have the same cost as GC infantry which that part of the strategy is supposed to emulate to a lower degree. Just remove the after-implementation cost nerf and bring it back down to just +10 instead of +25. Make something else easier to use. Reduce the cost-nerf of air transports by 50 (so 600+100 instead of 600+150).

That or make something else slightly easier. Just the air transports stick out at me when I look at the stats.

I support Desu's proposal. Removing the +25 would be too much.

Additionally, I had been thinking of this for a while now since several are saying that "HW is simply GW and GC combined" which irritates me.

Here are additional boost/nerfs that I would like to see added to the strategy.
- Make bombers 8 attack, 1 defense for 150 cost
- Give helicopters a 2 marine capacity, 1 attack 4 defense (with defense bonuses, default) for 170 cost.

if you give it a +1 marine capacity to HW, i would like to see the same boost to desert storm.
it will irritate me that a different strategy has better capacity than the actual strategy for helicopters.

He already added a huge nerf to it to compensate.

Anyway, @tophats, I laughed at your suggestions. You're really throwing the strategy to the side and making everything unconventional to the point where none of the normal rules for any of the units apply anymore. I don't really mind it though.

You seem to want helicopters to be a land submarine with that 2 capacity, why not go all the way? I wonder if aw is able to have temporary stealth units by strategy? Lets suggest making HW helicopters into stealths too. Goes along well with your huge nerf to its helicopters. Obviously keep submarines much better like they are now. (cheaper, more capacity, more range, and better offence/defence stats)

I like it.

Kirjutas Desu, 31.07.2013 at 17:24

Kirjutas Tundy, 31.07.2013 at 17:18

Kirjutas tophat, 31.07.2013 at 17:13

Kirjutas Desu, 30.07.2013 at 06:08

It's been basically unplayable since it came out. But since it's only something higher ranks with all upgrades AND premium can enjoy, I don't really mind. It certainly shouldn't be more powerful than the regular strategies most people use.

Though you are correct, I wouldn't remove the cost altogether. That would make it have the same cost as GC infantry which that part of the strategy is supposed to emulate to a lower degree. Just remove the after-implementation cost nerf and bring it back down to just +10 instead of +25. Make something else easier to use. Reduce the cost-nerf of air transports by 50 (so 600+100 instead of 600+150).

That or make something else slightly easier. Just the air transports stick out at me when I look at the stats.

I support Desu's proposal. Removing the +25 would be too much.

Additionally, I had been thinking of this for a while now since several are saying that "HW is simply GW and GC combined" which irritates me.

Here are additional boost/nerfs that I would like to see added to the strategy.
- Make bombers 8 attack, 1 defense for 150 cost
- Give helicopters a 2 marine capacity, 1 attack 4 defense (with defense bonuses, default) for 170 cost.

if you give it a +1 marine capacity to HW, i would like to see the same boost to desert storm.
it will irritate me that a different strategy has better capacity than the actual strategy for helicopters.

He already added a huge nerf to it to compensate.

Anyway, @tophats, I laughed at your suggestions. You're really throwing the strategy to the side and making everything unconventional to the point where none of the normal rules for any of the units apply anymore. I don't really mind it though.

You seem to want helicopters to be a land submarine with that 2 capacity, why not go all the way? I wonder if aw is able to have temporary stealth units by strategy? Lets suggest making HW helicopters into stealths too. Goes along well with your huge nerf to its helicopters.

I like it.

in that case, you should already suggest tanks with 1 attack and 9 defense.

Kirjutas Tundy, 31.07.2013 at 17:26

Kirjutas Desu, 31.07.2013 at 17:24

Anyway, @tophats, I laughed at your suggestions. You're really throwing the strategy to the side and making everything unconventional to the point where none of the normal rules for any of the units apply anymore. I don't really mind it though.

You seem to want helicopters to be a land submarine with that 2 capacity, why not go all the way? I wonder if aw is able to have temporary stealth units by strategy? Lets suggest making HW helicopters into stealths too. Goes along well with your huge nerf to its helicopters.

in that case, you should already suggest tanks with 1 attack and 9 defense.

You don't make sense.

Anyway, back ontopic, stealth helicopters in HW would be pretty great, it doesn't make it OP and adds another unconventional way of warfare to it. Just a matter if it's possible to code.

My suggestions are not unconventional. The purpose of conventional warfare is to weaken or destroy the enemy's forces, by weakening its ability to engage in conventional warfare. AW is not specific enough in its units to completely define an exactitude of conventional warfare. Unconventional warfare is the use of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. HW and my suggestions are nothing like that. But anyhow, stealth helicopters could work well indeed.

It would be really nice to have another valuable strategy to play with

Kirjutas Cthulhu, 11.08.2013 at 01:54

It would be really nice to have another valuable strategy to play with

I agree as well. However, I don't think HW is weak at all. It will become more popular in a few weeks or months. It takes time to learn a strategy. I will eventually make "strategies boosts and nerfs III" in the near future.

Kirjutas tophat, 12.08.2013 at 17:07

Kirjutas Cthulhu, 11.08.2013 at 01:54

It would be really nice to have another valuable strategy to play with

I agree as well. However, I don't think HW is weak at all. It will become more popular in a few weeks or months. It takes time to learn a strategy. I will eventually make "strategies boosts and nerfs III" in the near future.

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow

Kirjutas tophat, 12.08.2013 at 17:07

Kirjutas Cthulhu, 11.08.2013 at 01:54

It would be really nice to have another valuable strategy to play with

I agree as well. However, I don't think HW is weak at all. It will become more popular in a few weeks or months. It takes time to learn a strategy. I will eventually make "strategies boosts and nerfs III" in the near future.

HW might not be weak; however, HW has little room for mistakes with your budget, almost unforgiving. If you don't move those inf to the frontline, then they are taking a big chunk of upkeep from your economy. I love the gameplay of HW, but the cost of inf is to much for me to consider it a main strategy.

Bump of justice.

Kirjutas Desu, 30.07.2013 at 06:08

It's been basically unplayable since it came out. But since it's only something higher ranks with all upgrades AND premium can enjoy, I don't really mind. It certainly shouldn't be more powerful than the regular strategies most people use.

Though you are correct, I wouldn't remove the cost altogether. That would make it have the same cost as GC infantry which that part of the strategy is supposed to emulate to a lower degree. Just remove the after-implementation cost nerf and bring it back down to just +10 instead of +25. Make something else easier to use. Reduce the cost-nerf of air transports by 50 (so 600+100 instead of 600+150).

That or make something else slightly easier. Just the air transports stick out at me when I look at the stats.

I agree, though I don't have any first hand experience because no premium.

I have been useing it some lately and As for the infantry it really is horrible with the +25 and as added above it isn't like they are OP. I think it should only be +10 at the most. That is HWs only means of defence and it is costly as the milita have -1 def, so they are useless in defence so with the +1 attack they are only useful in attack but they still have pretty low range. I would also suggest an additional +1 movement for them to make them alittle more useful. As for the transports if you're going to keep the only means of defence expensive why would you need to nerf the transports? As for helicopters I think they should stay the same this is a land based strategy as I see it.

I don't understand why the need to massive nerf the inf, it can't attack. So why make it cost more in addition to that nerf?

I'm actually going to support Cthulhu here.

I can't get HW, so this is based purely on calculation, but:

Normally with the expendable inf upgrade inf cost 60 and have an average defence of 4
This gives an average defence per 10 cost value of ~0.67

With the original additional 10 cost for HW inf then had a cost of 70 and a defence of 4.5
This gives an average defence per 10 cost of ~0.64

The point I'm trying to make here is that HW inf were always nerfed, having a less efficient defence as well as a non-extant attack.

Therefore a further nerf was just unnecessary really, and seems to work on the assumption that HW made inf stronger in any way.

HW does need buffs/unnerfs. I support Cthulhu, +10 makes more sense than +25, or remove it all. +25 is way too much and makes it an unplayable strategy.

Kirjutas Goblin, 12.03.2014 at 14:26

HW does need buffs/unnerfs. I support Cthulhu, +10 makes more sense than +25, or remove it all. +25 is way too much and makes it an unplayable strategy. xD

Death, did you steal his account?

Yes boost Hybrid warfare its hard to use this strategy.
the tank low defence can get turn block, the infantry low attack is usless and epensive
make infatry cost cheaper.

Seriuosly you can't conquer any terriortory if you have no tanks and infatry is usless if your enmy don't attack you

This strategy is horrible i just got it. your infatry can''t attack once you run out of your main attack you lose. it expennsive too and militia are expensive

I can't wall to expensive make militia cheaper.

I thought this is supposed to be an american strategy miltia low defence is horrible. what should i wall with i need a cheaper nit to wall my city with.

Still think we need lower the inf cost

-100 Cost to Marines also seem better.

It would make it as cheap as PD INF